Jump to content

Ouraibaa Hjyuraa

Members
  • Content count

    2,674
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

Ouraibaa Hjyuraa last won the day on April 16 2015

Ouraibaa Hjyuraa had the most liked content!

About Ouraibaa Hjyuraa

  • Rank
    Fuwa Master
  • Birthday 08/15/1996

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    NightAngelKylar

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Denmark

Recent Profile Visitors

18,623 profile views
  1. Unlimited Chat Works - Random Talk

    Yare yare daze.
  2. Unlimited Chat Works - Random Talk

    My usage of the word "individualism" was arbitrary. I felt it was the word most fitting to describe the ethical system in which we put the value of individuals higher than the value of the society in which they live. If individualism usually describes a different school of ethics, then I am sorry for the confusion. Please view the word "individualism" in accordance with the context I've used, not with any prior ethical meaning to the word. Or feel free to offer a fitting alternative name that intuitively describes the ethical approach of putting the individual above society. Lord knows I'm too tired to come up with it. I've reached the point where my lenses are so dry I blink twice every two seconds. Acceptance for incest or any other sexual right is always based on individualism. Because the only argument is, "because we want to." It completely revolves around whether people should be allowed to do what they want, regardless of what society thinks of it (or if it hurts society). If agree with that argument, that automatically means you agree with a slew of other things, including incest, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, and polygamy. I'd like to respond to this, but first I'd like you to define the "it" as I don't feel confident in my deductive ability right now. Of course, I could come back to this when I wake up, but I still have 5 hours more I need to be awake for, and you're the best entertainment I've got right now. So what is nowhere close of being an agenda? Define most cases. The most common forms of bestiality are with dogs, horses, and goats. Is that rape? Animals can't give consent, but then again, that golden retriever seems pretty content as its humping away. Is it potentially rape? So it's okay if the animal isn't harmed? Well golly-gee fun fact, but that's the case with the vast majority of bestiality cases. And if rape of animals is a thing we punish people for, what about when animals rape animals? Male ducks routinely rape female ducks. Are we gonna have people on watch ready to separate them at a moment's notice? If we see it, do we call the police? Humans have this bad habit of attributing human norms and characteristics to animals that don't posses them. It's ridiculous to apply human morality to animals. Morality exists to be a benefit for human society. It doesn't extend to other animals.
  3. Unlimited Chat Works - Random Talk

    I disagree, but I might also be conflating individualism with postmodernism. If you say that the good of another person restricts you in individualism, then there's no difference between individualism and collectivism, as a society or tribe or group is just a collective of individuals. The point of individualism is that the individual is supreme, and that every individual is supreme, but only as far as they themselves is concerned. Individualism says that all the opinions of everyone is equally valid. If I want to rape you, I can do that if I want. If you don't want it, you can resist. Both stances are equally valid. The consent argument is not consistent with individualism. It has its basis in collectivism. And an animal is not an individual/person. Otherwise, every time you kill cattle for food or bugs because they bug you, it's murder.
  4. Unlimited Chat Works - Random Talk

    Lmao. Yeah, 'cause the thread dying is so unusual. xD But fair enough, I'll add to the conversation. Caveat, though! I'm quite tired, so I might ramble a bit. I'm not against gay marriage myself, but I can try and play the Devil's advocate (ironically). One reason for being against gay marriage can be the religious aspect, though that would also involve prohibiting atheists or people of other religions getting married. Then again, in that scenario, there could just be established a non-religious marriage, with a non-religious authority figure to legalize the union. So meh. Another reason could be the fear of a slippery slope, which is not without credibility, where people are afraid it's gonna go towards disaster one tiny step at a time. The reason I say it's not without credibility is because I remember seeing advocates for gay marriage on old TV debates going "Oh come on, it's just marriage! It's not like we're gonna start teaching it to kids in school!" Not only is it being taught to kids in school, but so is transgenderism, which I think is an appalling thing to do. That does not mean gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry, obviously, but that kind of fear might be what fuels the position. Also, the homosexuality "movement" is needlessly perverse, which is not helping their cause. If you want to convince regular people that you're a normal human being just like them, maybe you shouldn't dress up in spandex and BDSM gear at your pride parades. Not to mention making prepubescent boys twerk half naked on the street. I've read your question and I will answer it, but let me give my 5 cents about incest in general first, as it's actually a subject I find quite interesting. I have a great interest in morality and general philosophy, so it's a topic I've thought about on and off for a long time. Okay, so I actually wrote an entire paragraph, but found myself rambling way too much, and I've decided I need to try and condense it. I think one of the most important things to understand before going into this discussion is this: Human societies are in a constant battle between two separate ideals: Collectivism (i.e. order) and Individualism (i.e. freedom). Both have their pros and cons, and society cannot function with only one of them. Collectivism says that people must make sacrifices to their freedom and independency for the good of the group. Like paying taxes or not breaking the law. Taken to its extreme, we get totalitarian states, like the Soviet Union, where your rights are non-existent and you are expendable. You only exist in order to be a benefit for the nation, as it sees fit. It represents the absolute of order. But order without happiness doesn't work, and we can't have happiness without individuality. So on to individualism. Individualism says that the individual is supreme over the collective. That everyone is unique and does not belong to any group. Taken to its extreme, it means no one is bound by any rules other than those they set for themselves. It means reality is subjective, your gender is whatever you want it to be, the law does not apply to you, ectera. A society can not be purely individualistic, as it will instantly turn into an anarchy if it ever tries to be. It represents the absolute of chaos. For society to function, we need a balance of both collectivism and individualism, so as to have both the order of the former and the happiness of the latter. However, society always tend to lean more to one or the other. But unlike traditionally where it has leaned more towards collectivism than individualism, we now lean towards individualism, and I'd argue that we're on a steady course towards complete individualism. Because once you start putting individualism over norms and traditions, there's no logical place to stop. This is why the LGBTQASKLNTRKESAMwhatever is spinning out of control and why we suddenly have 127 genders. If we put what the individual thinks above what society thinks, everything becomes subjective, and if everything is subjective, then nothing is real and everything is meaningless and the only thing that matters is one's own subjective perception and feelings. That's the basis of the arguments of feminists and all the other "civil rights" advocates. I probably did a really shitty job of explaining all that, but like I said, I'm tired, so forgive me. ^^ So why was any of that relevant? Because, like I said, we're leaning towards individualism, so these issues get increasingly tackled from an individualistic approach. The only ways you can advocate against something like incest are with either morality or societal pragmatism, both of which use a collectivist foundation rather than an individualistic foundation, which is where the problem arises. Because individualism doesn't care about morality because morality is imposed by the collective on the individual, and societal pragmatism puts the needs of the group above the individual, so that's out of the question too. (If you wonder what I mean, by "societal pragmatism," I mean, for example, how legalizing incest is extremely bad for the stability of families and opens up the floodgate for a whole host of problems. But since the individual reigns supreme in individualism, that doesn't matter.) So to answer your question, it depends entirely on your value system. If you value collectivism above individualism, then you'll adhere either to the morality of the society you find yourself in, or to the pragmatism of context. If you value individualism over collectivism, then you don't have any argument against it. Or really any sexual activity, including bestiality and pedophilia. Not without having an inconsistent argument, anyway. Feel free to offer counterarguments if you want. I'm sitting here yawning every 30 seconds, so I probably made an error of logic here and there. Or everywhere.
  5. Unlimited Chat Works - Random Talk

    I'm not sure what you mean. How does over-glorification of guns cause gun problems, and how would it continue to do so despite regulations? (not that regulations would work anyway, imo) It's treated that way because it's what guarantees them their rights. I've always found this to be a silly argument. When the Constitutions was written, it wasn't uncommon for citizens to own cannons. And there was a TON of advancement in firearm weaponry during the past couple hundred years, going from matchlock to wheellock to flintlock. Not to mention that multiple-shot guns had already existed for 200 years, with the 8-chambered matchlock revolver made in Germany. The earliest known "Machine gun" is the Puckle Gun from 1718. Another repeater design that could shoot 20 shots in 5 seconds was commissioned by Continental Congress in 1777, though it was rescinded when the price proved disagreeable. The right to bear arms exists so as to avoid a tyrannical government who could hold down its people by force. However deadly weapons become doesn't change that, unless you think it sensible to fight government soldiers armed with assault rifles while only using a musket. And if you think "naaaah, that could never happen in the U.S.!" I'd like to point out that the Jews of Germany probably felt the same way back after WW1. A tyrannical government is always a possibility. It's easy to blame guns, but if we go just half a century back in time, it doesn't really hold up. Guns were infinitely easier to get in the 60s. Go into any hardware store you liked, come out with a gun. Hell, high schools used to have shooting ranges and rifle training! When the first school shooting in modern times occurred in 1966 at Texas University, professors at the school left their classrooms, went out to their cars, took out rifles, and started laying suppressing fire at the sniper, stopping him from getting any more kills. Guns were so common in the 60s that professors had them just lying in their car trunks. Yet the 60s had nowhere near the problems with gun violence that today does, despite the much higher availability for guns. Hell, going slightly earlier than that, up until the 1930s, you can mail order a machine gun, no questions asked. No background checks, no nothing. Plano, Texas, has the highest amount of guns per capita in the U.S., yet one of the lowest rates of gun violence per capita and in fact has less homicide per capita than most European countries, most of which has nowhere near as many guns. The amount of guns in the U.S. from 1994 to 2011 increased by nearly a third, while the homicide rate dropped by nearly 50%. The problem with gun violence today is not due to the guns. Its due to the lack of proper police enforcement and societal breakdown of morality (which is mostly due to the family breakdown. In fact, if you normalize by single-motherhood in the black community, the crime rate virtually disappears.). If we got rid of guns, the source of the problem would just find another outlet. Japan has a lot fewer guns than the U.S., but instead they have people poisoning the air in subways. On the other hand, in Switzerland nearly every grown man owns a gun, yet they have the lowest homicide rate in the world.
  6. Unlimited Chat Works - Random Talk

    Sorry Kenshin, Jun. Cole just won the Victim Olympics. Nothing to top that. Our Thoughts and Prayers are with you, Cole.
  7. Unlimited Chat Works - Random Talk

    Like how people propose the banning of trucks and vans in some European countries? Let's ban knives, too. That would go against the 2nd Amendment. Besides, the dude was rich. It'd hardly have stopped him. He passed all of those. Those also didn't stop the Sandy Hook kid, who had a history of mental illness, from getting hold of a gun. This is actually unconstitutional to enforce for criminals. The Supreme Court ruled that making a felon register their illegal weapons was a violation of their 5th right to not self incriminate. All gun registration laws have to contain a carve out stating they only apply to those who lawfully posses their guns. Besides, every country in the world who has such a database has proven that is does not prevent gun crime, just criminalizes law abiding gun owners. Canada dumped just such a program because of this.
  8. Unlimited Chat Works - Random Talk

    Of course there will be a cut down on illegal imam marriages if those marriages are made legal, lol. But I know what you mean, it won't do jack shit to deal with the child-adult marriages.
  9. Unlimited Chat Works - Random Talk

    Which reforms would that be?
  10. Unlimited Chat Works - Random Talk

    Oh, is the World Cup coming around again?
  11. Unlimited Chat Works - Random Talk

    Hey Jun. How are things?
  12. Unlimited Chat Works - Random Talk

    That's pretty sad.
  13. Unlimited Chat Works - Random Talk

    Hello Cro. Looks like there are still a few of the Fuwa Fiddlers alive. (Anyone who gets that reference gets an internet cookie)
  14. Unlimited Chat Works - Random Talk

    It's a fucking internet forum thread, not an 16K version of Beijing 2003 being streamed on loop. It doesn't take very many resources to keep open.
  15. Unlimited Chat Works - Random Talk

    I WILL DESTROY YOU!
×